There has been an interesting response to my story on responsible tourism, where I hoped to at least get some people thinking about what kind of tourism do we want for Bermuda (and what kind of tourism do we not want).

One can read the full response here on BIAW. AMCAM

I thought it would be a good idea t quickly respond to it though:

  1. AMCAM wonders how I figure the actions of Ms Fox constituted ‘irresponsible tourism’. To understand that one needs to look at how I define ‘responsible tourism’, which I do in the same article (for just this purpose). The definition I use, which I think is a good one, is that used by the International Ecotourism society ‘responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people’. A tourist coming, carting of some 70 pounds of sea glass (part of our environment), and in doing so hurting local artisans, would seem to be very much contrary to any interpretation of responsible tourism. Thus my reasoning that her actions constituted ‘irresponsible tourism’. I’m surprised I had to explain that. AMCAM is usually one of the most insightful commentators on tourism issues after all…
  2. ‘Imperialist mindset of a White American tourist’ – AMCAM takes particular exception to my choice of phrasing here. Perhaps it’s useful to expand on it for his (and others) benefits. Ms Fox is a White American tourist. That’s a statement of fact. That in itself means little, in as much as the vast majority of our tourists could be so defined. And that’s fine. However, to believe that there’s no racial dynamics involved in tourism featuring Whites expecting to be served hand and foot by a majority Black population in a country with a history of slavery and segregation where Blacks were forced (overtly and covertly) to serve Whites for centuries is to be delusional. Service doesn’t need to be servitude, that’s clear. And it shouldn’t be. The relationship should be one of hospitality to guests – a host-guest relationship, rather than a master-servant relationship. However, there are certain things such as White privilege here, as well as power dynamics and historical factors at play. We shouldn’t kid ourselves that this is not a reality. As for ‘imperialist mindset’, that seems quite an apt fit for describing a mindset of someone coming to someones homeland and simply helping themselves to the resources there and seeing no problem in doing so. It is an exploitative and imperialist mindset. The history of the Americas is full of this tendency, of Whites coming, expecting the ‘natives’ to be their ‘happy’ servants and generally raping and pillaging the environment. Ms Fox’s actions, while obviously no where as barbaric as the conquests of the Americas, follows this general mindset, and accordingly is resented as such within the general prism of our collective (Americas) history. I don’t need to ‘think twice’ before describing the incident in question as representative of an imperialist mindset by a White American tourist. It simply strips away the niceties that usually obscure these things. It quite aptly describes the incident. It may not be in terms that make AMCAM or others comfortable, as it touches on matters of race and exploitation, but so what? If the description fits and all…
  3. ‘Claims are conjecture’ ‘rant’ – All I did was provide a general summary of what was reported in the media, and by Ms Fox herself. It is a fact that Ms Fox came to Bermuda for the explicit purpose of collecting sea glass for her business. It is a fact that she collected approximately 70 pounds worth of sea glass. It is a fact that she then exported this sea glass back to the USA. It is a fact that she is using this sea glass for the purpose of making a profit. How any of that equals ‘conjecture’ is beyond me. What is circumstantial is where she collected all her 70 pounds worth of sea glass (was it at sea glass beach – which seems probable – where there is a sign forbidding such?), and I didn’t make any firm statement on that at all. It is my understanding that removing sea glass and doing so for business reasons like she did, is illegal. It may be okay for local artisans to do so in a small-scale sustainable way, but it is not okay for a ‘tourist’ to act in such an unsustainable way. Not quite sure how it constitutes a ‘rant’ however. I’m happy with people disagreeing with me and putting forward a counter-argument. Heck, that’s what I called for, a conversation. Not barbs. If AMCAM want’s to put forward a counter-position, I welcome him to do just that.
  4. ‘Jonathan, Bermuda does not need your brand of tourism!’ – And which brand of tourism is that? The brand of tourism I explicitly suggested Bermuda should adopt was that or responsible tourism, of which I provided a definition. Is AMCAM saying that Bermuda doesn’t need a brand of tourism based on ‘responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people’? Is AMCAM suggesting we should instead advocate a brand of tourism that does the opposite, that seeks to damage the environment and hurt the well-being of local people? If that’s the kind of tourism AMCAM believes we should have, I’m sure the majority of our people would respectfully disagree. And if that’s not what AMCAM means, then what does he mean, and what sort of ‘brand of tourism’ does he think I’m advocating then? It’s either a poor argument on his part (misrepresenting my argument) or, well, I don’t know what else. If I’m charitable I’d suggest he only read the first half of the post and didn’t bother to read it all and consider the argument.

Ultimately, I’m all for serving our tourists as hosts do guests. I think that’s healthy. I do not support a form of tourism predicated on servitude, in a master-servant dynamic. And I’m for a tourism where tourists come here to enjoy our natural environment and culture, that engages in a non-exploitative manner with our environment, culture and economy.

I’m not for a form of tourism that, in the Caribbean, has been called ‘whorism’, a wholly exploitative form of tourism. This doesn’t necessarily mean sex tourism, but rather the general approach of engaging with our environment, culture and economy in a fundamentally exploitative manner.

But let’s have that conversation.

Derek Walcott, 1992 Nobel prize winner for literature.

Derek Walcott, 1992 Nobel prize winner for literature.

I think it’s appropriate here to conclude with an excerpt from Derek Walcott’s Nobel prize speech:

“But in our tourist brochures the Caribbean is a blue pool into which the republic dangles the extended foot of Florida as inflated rubber islands bob, and drinks with umbrellas float towards here on a raft. This is how the islands from shame of necessity sell themselves; this is the seasonal erosion of their identity, that high-pitched repetition of the same images of service that cannot distinguish one island from the other, with a future of polluted marinas, land deals negotiated by ministers, and all of this conducted to the music of Happy Hour and the rictus of a smile. What is the earthly paradise for our visitors? Two weeks without rain and a mahogany tan, and, at sunset, local troubadours in straw hats and floral shirts beating ‘Yellow Bird’ and ‘Banana Boat Song’ to death.”


Freedom of Speech – An Update

Just yesterday I wrote that the way Mr Kimathi was put on the stop list would make him a martyr and would be counterproductive. I wrote that:

“It actually benefits Mr Kimathi as he can now appeal to his followers about an injustice, and use it to fuel his ravings. It’s easy to spin – the reason I was banned was because I spoke the truth and threatened the White elite who rule Bermuda! Easily done.”

And today there’s this article where Mr Kimathi argues he was banned because “special interest groups, particularly the promosexuals and homosexuals have conspired” resulting in him being “banned from a black country.”

Now, I’m not a PR person or a spin doctor or nothing. Surely though if I could see this was going to be the reaction, others could do?

Mr Kimathi can now complain of a conspiracy, of an injustice. And those on island who agree with him will likely harden their views now. Surely it would have been better to have allowed the Human Rights Commission to finish and publish its investigation first, and allow for his views to be defeated with counter-arguments (which really shouldn’t have been hard)?

Hopefully lesson learned and we’ll handle any future incident differently. In the mean time, while this may well pass soon enough, how do we go about now constructively dismissing Mr Kimathi’s hateful pseudo-scientific propaganda?


There is now also an e-petition calling for Mr Kimathi to be removed from the stop-list:

“Bermuda as a whole can decide whether Mr Kimathi is welcome again in Bermuda . His opinions no matter how they are said . should not be used as a political foothold to silence the voices of people in Bermuda.”


Becky’s Beach Glass Design – An Example of Irresponsible Tourism?

This is a news story that has developed over the last few days in local media.

Basically, a US tourist, who happens to be a jeweler specialising in incorporating sea glass into her works, came to Bermuda, scooped up about 70 pounds (about 32 kilograms) of sea glass from Bermudian waters, and took it to the USA where she’s made a handsome profit from it. By her own admission she came to Bermuda explicitly for this purpose, as part of her business.

Now, there’s a few problems with her actions here.

For one thing, that she came to Bermuda for this explicit purpose breaches our laws regarding work permits. She would have required at least a temporary work permit for this action – it was illegal for her to do what she did as a tourist.

More importantly, it is against Bermudian law to remove sea glass from the beach in the first place, and it’s also against the law to export this.

The relevant legislation in question can be found here…

Now, Ms Fox, the jeweler, has since compounded matters, by being quite frank in the US media about what she did, and then blocking, and deleting comments by, Bermudians and others who have been critical of her actions and pointed out how she broke the law and has been quite insulting to our people.

She’s also playing the victim here and telling folk she’s being bullied and people are making things up. As she’s deleting comments pointing out exactly how she broke the law and refusing people the right of reply, some of her readers are indeed believing that she is being bullied and has done nothing wrong.

Now, I don’t intend to get into a whole discussion about Ms Fox here.

Quite frankly, she broke the law, she’s acted very insultingly to Bermuda and Bermudians, and her behavior has been quite poor and disappointing. I think she could have defused the whole thing immediately after her wrong-doing was pointed out to her. She could have simply said something along the lines of:

“I’m sorry. I didn’t realise what I did was wrong and clearly misunderstood the laws of Bermuda. I am sorry to anyone that I have hurt and will be contacting the Bermudian authorities to work out how best to resolve this issue in an amicable way, and all the profits that from sale of Bermuda glass jewellery is being donated to these environmental charities in Bermuda. Lesson learned.”

That would have been enough I think.

Our people are largely forgiving, and an honest recognition of making a mistake and taking steps to make good would have been welcomed. Heck, we probably would have helped advertise her wares – it would raise money for our charities, boost awareness of our local artisans and be a good little tourism advertisement for Bermuda. Her refusal to even accept any wrong-doing and compounding it by insulting our people and trying to silence us, yeah, that’s left a rather sour taste and won’t be forgotten.

I for one hope that our Government will be taking steps to:

  • Seek compensation from Ms Fox;
  • Tighten up regulations concerning sea glass and other artifacts;
  • Boost local artisans;
  • Ramp up inspections.

Responsible Tourism

However, I digress. There’s really not much more that can be said on this story that hasn’t been said already in the media or by hordes of my righteously irate compatriots on various social media.

What I find most interesting about this incident, other than the imperialist mindset of a White American tourist in appropriating other peoples natural and cultural resources, is how this allows us to really focus on what kind of tourism we want for Bermuda, and what are the possible consequences/impacts of tourism in Bermuda?

The Ecotourism Society defines ecotourism as “responsible travel to natural areas that conserves the environment and improves the well-being of local people”.

I think that’s a pretty decent definition, and should really be the ideal form of tourism that we want – and the kind of tourists we should be when we travel.

Now this definition is not simply ‘green’ tourism. One can build a resort with the latest green tech, or go on an explicitly nature vacation (hiking in a natural park, etc), without meeting this criteria. It also has to ensure economic benefit to ordinary people and not threaten or undermine the local economy and culture.

If one were to apply this concept to this particular incident, then not taking our sea glass was the responsible thing to do. Supporting local artisans was the responsible thing to do. Perhaps asking to work with some of our local sea glass artisans would have been the right things to do, and even arranging to help sell their products in the USA through her site would have been the responsible thing to do.

Doing all this would have ensured the sustainability of our sea glass beaches (certainly a lot more than carting away 70 pounds of it!) and boosted the local economy and artisans.

This principle can apply to tourism in general for Bermuda. It means making sure that the impact on our environment and infrastructure is sustainable, that it doesn’t destroy the very nature that attracts tourists here in the first place (and environment here means more than just beaches, clear blue waters and greenery – it extends to pollution, litter, energy use, waste management, food, water, traffic, etc).

And it also means that tourism should benefit ordinary people. I don’t mean the bank accounts of the elite, of the 1%. I mean ordinary people overall. We all recognise that there is some degree of trickle down from tourism, even if it’s just revenue collected by the government and used for public services.

However, I’m thinking more in terms or increasing local economic links and reducing leakage of the tourist dollar overseas (or into the bank accounts of the elite), and this means ensuring the tourist dollar is more equitable spread (through using local entertainers, boosting local artisans, using small businesses as much as possible, relying on local farmers as much as possible). Doing this – and shifting to renewable energy – all keeps the tourist dollar local and spreads it around more equitably, while also supporting local enterprise and culture.

Starting a Conversation?

There’s A LOT that can be written about responsible tourism and how it can be applied to the benefit of Bermuda.

I’ve already written a longer piece than I like writing – I just think that if some good is to come out of this incident it is that we might be able to start a conversation about tourism in Bermuda – what are it’s negative impacts, how do we address them, what kind of sustainable tourism do we want and how do we go about realising it? Just for starters…


Freedom of Speech?

Remember ‘Je suis Charlie’?

At the very beginning of the year the world, or at least the Western world, was transfixed by the massacre at Charlie Hebdo. This attack by some rather disturbed individuals was, I think it’s fair to say, a reaction to the Islamophobic imagery and rhetoric produced by this magazine, imagery that was deliberately provocative and daring a response.

While the vast majority of those offended by these provocations chose to either ignore it or to combat it equally with the pen, these two disturbed individuals sought to combat it literally with a hail of bullets.

Almost immediately the Western world, Bermuda included, was swamped with ‘Je suis Charlie’ demonstrations, strongly defending that freedom of speech included the right to offend. Our politicians spoke eloquently along these lines too. The basic argument was that people are free to speak and free to oppose the speech of others, but such speech should not be censored or otherwise stifled.

Today, a mere nine months on, many of those who spoke so eloquently in defence of free speech in January, today seem happy to enforce censorship and champion the use of our stop list to ban an individual for voicing provocative and offensive views.

***For overseas readers, the ‘stop-list’ is a way of barring entry to Bermuda of those the Government decides to be undesirables. Should they get to the airport or dock, they’re refused entry and put back on the next vessel leaving the island.***

Free Speech or Hate Speech?

There is of course a large body of discourse around the issue of freedom of speech and hate speech:

  • What is the fine line between the two?
  • How should the latter be handled without impinging on free speech?

To be clear, I personally find Mr Kimathi’s views abhorrent, and I do indeed think they stray into the category of hate speech – as regards Whites and those who stray from a fictional heterosexual dichotomy of sexual orientation, gender or gender codes. And I do believe Mr Kimanthi, has advocated (although it’s not clear how explicitly he did in Bermuda) violence towards these segments of our society.

Now, incitement to violence is a crime, and if Mr Kimathi did this, then he should indeed be charged and face trial accordingly. Espousing ridiculous opinions without any basis in science, that may be a crime against oneself, general decency and logic, however it is not a crime in the sense of being subject to arrest and trial.

Making a Martyr?

The problem with banning Mr Kimathi like this – without a police investigation and trial, and even before the Human Rights Commission has been able to investigate the matter properly – is that it risks making him, and his ideology, almost a martyr, in the sense of not being accorded due process or proper scrutiny. It actually benefits Mr Kimathi as he can now appeal to his followers about an injustice, and use it to fuel his ravings. It’s easy to spin – the reason I was banned was because I spoke the truth and threatened the White elite who rule Bermuda! Easily done.

A far better approach would be to allow Mr Kimathi’s ideology to be fully scrutinised by the people, to be refuted ideologically, to be confronted with peaceful demonstration to say that his ideology, what he represents, is not supported by the majority of our people. Those who are partial to his ideology could exchange arguments and, potentially, be convinced otherwise. That’s how to defeat Mr Kimanthi’s ideology and appeal.

Instead, now he can wear his ban as a badge of honour, as the mark of a martyr.

And those on island who support his hateful ideology may well go underground, where the ideology cannot be challenged, where it can only harden and find itself – potentially – in violent expression. This form of authoritatian reaction is a perfect incubator for extremism; it is a recipe for it finding fertile ground in those in our society who feel lost, alienated and resentful.

Setback for Race Relations?

One particular victim of Mr Kimathi and Minister Fahy’s reaction is that it has very much set back what was left of reasonable discussion concerning structural racism in Bermuda.

The topic that Mr Kimathi’s speech was advertised about, of the need for better education and understanding of African history and contribution to our society, is one that we need. The Ashay programme, now aborted, was an attempt to provide just this, as a complement to the dominant European narrative in our society.

However due to Mr Kimathi’s hateful ideology, one that I think can only be characterised as a particularly perverse form of Black supremacism (as opposed to Black Power), all talk of such an initiative is derailed. Heck, any talk of really confronting structural racism in Bermuda as a whole is likely derailed, at least set back. It will be all too easy for those opposed (for whatever reason) to such a frank discussion to frame it in terms of Mr Kimathi’s arguments, and use this as an excuse not to engage.

Incitement to Violence

To me, the only limit that should be placed on free speech is that of incitement to violence.

Anything else, as abhorrent as they may be, deserves simply to be derided and challenged with alternative argument, or met by peaceful demonstration (or both). Or even simply ignored and let to peter out as an absurdity clear to all.

The use of a stop list is a slippery slope and one that I think we all need to be concerned about.

I am not convinced – at all – that it was an appropriate reaction. At the very least, the decision should only have followed the Human Rights Commission report on Mr Kimathi’s actions on island.

A stop list is open to abuse, to stifling debate and reducing the diversity of thought that should be the oxygen of any democracy.

My thinking is that an ideologue should only be subject to a stop list if – and only if – they have been convicted of inciting violence. After being convicted of this, and paying either the fine or serving time in prison, or some sort of restorative justice, they can be denied further entry on this basis. And that basis alone, regardless of how disgusting I find the individuals ideology.

Return to Reasoned Conversation Needed

What we do need, and desperately, is a return to a frank conversation about structural racism in Bermuda – its causes, its consequences, possible steps to end it (of which a frank conversation is but an important first step). A better appreciation of the role of African history and culture in our collective history has a key role to play here too.

Quite frankly, we either do this properly or we leave a vacuum to be filled by pseudo-scientific and hate-filled ravings like those peddled by Mr Kimanthi.

***For avoidance of doubt, I don’t think this action was taken lightly by the Government, and I don’t think there was any conspiracy about it, although I can understand why some on social media are articulating it as such. I think the Government has acted in good faith here, trying to do the right thing. The issue of free speech and hate speech is a very complex and difficult one, one that is emotive and I don’t think there’s any one right answer. I just think that the litmus test should be incitement to violence, where the alleged incitee is provided with due process. That’s my belief, and I think it’s a reasonable one, although I certainly understand the passions that Mr Kimathi’s speech (and history) have riled. To me, a strong democracy must take great care on matters of freedom of speech, and dealing with our structural race problems are key to the long-term sustainability of our society and democracy.***

Here’s Johnny!

As luck would have it, only a month after officially winning the 2015 Best of Bermuda Award for blogging, I lost my home internet access. I was expecting to only be offline for a week or two, however that turned out to be wildly optimistic.

Two months later, I’ve finally got internet back!

Being more or less offline for the last two months has been interesting. It certainly has its pros and cons – however, with our increasingly technologically dependent society, I feel the lack of email access was certainly a major con.

The time has allowed me to focus on some other matters, and I am continuing to consider a different approach for this site. I haven’t made a decision yet, but I hope to trial a few things media

Limited internet access…

Apologies to readers, however I have had limited internet access for the last two weeks, and likely for the next two weeks also.

So posting is kind of on hiatus at the moment – think of it as an extended CupMatch blogging holiday….

As soon as I’m able to get a regular and secure connection, I’ll be back to posting properly.

Article on Municipal Reform

So, I’ve got an article on Bernews today, written in reaction to the Municipal Amendment Act 2015 (no.2).

While I don’t comment on the articles themselves – as I find that completely derails the conversation even more than usual – I do occasionally break that commandment of the internet and read the comments on them. I do this primarily because I look forward to constructive criticism, added information or generally get some ideas on how to improve my writing style.

City Hall

City Hall

I must admit quite often I find the comments confusing at times – I find it difficult sometimes to really understand where some of the comments are coming from.

Perhaps the article wasn’t clear enough, or perhaps people are just reacting to it through a prejudicial lens and as a result are simply seeing something there that either isn’t there or I myself am self-blinded to?

What I’ll try and do here is respond to some of the main questions or comments that seem to be raised in the comments section, for the sake of an attempted clarification.

1) Do I think Team Hamilton worked out?

No – and I’ve been critical of Team Hamilton over the years. I, like many others, had some high hopes for them, but was disappointed by several of the more questionable actions taken by them. I don’t, however, fully blame them, and I think some of the coverage has only portrayed part of the story.

Take for example the whole car-parking fiasco (clamping, etc). As far as I can tell, the fault here lies with the Government, not City Hall. City Hall appears to have taken all the necessary responsible actions to try and follow the law concerning clamping. However, the hold-up came from Government in not Gazetting it properly – as I understand the situation. Government could have easily resolved that fiasco, but I almost feel as if Government were deliberately holding it up to apply pressure on an administration they had issues with. That’s just how it seems to me.

It’s also clear that City Hall was having cash flow problems resulting from the loss of wharfage fees that was a consequence from the Municipal Amendment Act 2010. Getting tough on parking issues – via clamping – was supposed to help alleviate those financial pressures, but…

I don’t think Team Hamilton was all that bad however. I think they did quite a lot of good work amongst the bad, and in particular I commend them for the work they undertook at Princess Street and Ewing Street, as well as the initiative they took to increase footfall along Court Street.

And just because Team Hamilton wasn’t all that great, does not justify, in my opinion, the undermining of municipal democracy, which several of the OBA’s reforms have done, especially this current one. There were alternatives to improving the system, rather than thoroughly undermining it like the Government has.

Essentially though, in answer to this question, criticism of the current direction of the OBA does not translate into full support for Team Hamilton. Things aren’t that black and white and it’s a mistake to interpret such criticism so simplistically.

2) The business vote…

A number of comments have focused on my reference to the business vote, and seem to have thoroughly misunderstood what I was saying here.

Yes, I’m skeptical of the business vote, but that’s not really the point I was making. I do have concerns that with the introduction of the business vote, in the weighted way they’ve done it, it’s handed the business vote an effective veto on the city council – it’s handed majority power to the business vote (in St George’s it’s the reverse). I am disappointed, as I say in the article, that the interests of both business and residents has not been balanced – rather the pendulum has swung too far in the opposite direction, away from residents and to business. If we are going to have a business vote, then I think they should be balanced on the council, not weighted in such a way that one dominates the other.

This also speaks to the comment that ‘his claim about non-resident reps is a lie’. I never said there weren’t any resident representatives on the City council – no where in the article do I say that. I simply say that the interests of the two blocks of voters (residents and businesses) have not been balanced; that the business vote dominates and controls the council under the new system.

3) Why didn’t he demand the release of the $800k PLP municipal report under the PLP? And where was he before the OBA Government?

I did.

This poster either hasn’t bothered to fact check or simply doesn’t care. Either way, they are simply mistaken and creating misinformation, be it intentional or not.

This same commentator wonders why there were no continuous sit-ins or protests or articles from me under the PLP.

Well, there were articles of me, critical of the PLP before the OBA came to power. Most of those articles were online here, but there are plenty of formal media articles where I express crticism of various actions the PLP took when in power.

I also think it’s important to note that I really didn’t get involved in politics, in a local active sense, until around 2006. While in the Regiment (2003-2006) I felt it was inappropriate to be actively involved, rightly or wrongly.

Also, social media (for which I owe a lot of whatever public profile I have, through this blog primarily) only really got off the ground around 2006 or so – this site itself dates from 2007. Bernews itself only dates from 2010, and the rise of Facebook as a site for political discourse only really developed around that time too, and especially only since 2012.

Beyond that, in 2007 I decided to pursue a career change and realised I’d need to go back to school for that – and so I left in August 2008 for post-graduate studies, and was off island until June 2011. So I couldn’t really be organising protests or sit-ins in Bermuda while I was overseas – although I did continue to write on this site.

And it was only towards the end of 2012, with the election, that I gained a certain degree of a public profile that led to my being able to write articles outside of this site – and also with the changes to social media that occurred around that time that I realised it might be necessary to move beyond posting on this site only.

4) The business vote was not controversial!

I think the commentator has a different definition of controversy than I.

That it has exercised some of the most passionate debates around democracy, and was involved in the genesis of protests and angry exchanges in parliament, both under the PLP and the OBA, indicates to me that it is controversial. To the commentator it may be a matter of common sense that there be a business vote in municipal elections, but that’s got very little to do with whether that policy is or isn’t controversial in our political context.

[There’s plenty links I could post to articles on this controversial policy, both for and against – I’ve only included two to indicate that there are clear divisions on it.]

Again though, the business vote wasn’t the focus of the article…

5) Starling’s biased against the OBA!

I’m constantly amazed by this insight. Of course I’m biased against the OBA, that’s hardly a secret. My ideological position (Marxism) is inherently opposed to the OBA which is very much a political manifestation of our local bourgeoisie. Is it any wonder that I’ll be biased against them?

Bias in and of itself is not a problem. If anything it’s only when one’s unaware of ones bias that it’s a problem – my bias is explicit.

I write as a political commentator, not as a neutral political journalist. I have an angle, I have an ideology. I have no obligation to be objective in my treatment of the OBA – I’ve never claimed to write as a neutral, only as an independent – independent of both the OBA and the PLP. Sometimes my positions align with the PLP, sometimes they align with the OBA (on various social issues and political reforms – although the OBA haven’t moved on any of the political reforms I share with them). Often they align with neither, but as the OBA’s in power they’re the focus of my critique.

This same commentator also repeats the lie that I failed to criticise the PLP ‘at every turn throughout their 14 years of mismanagement’ – which as I touch on in point 3 above is patently false and more misinformation.

Missing the point…

Pretty much every commentator has completely missed the central point I was making in the article, which is that the Municipal Amendment Act 2015 (no.2) fatally undermines any notion of a functioning municipal democracy. It gives the Minister the power to assume direct control of the municipality solely on the Ministers subjective belief that such is necessary.

St George's Town Hall

St George’s Town Hall

No objective test is required for the Minister to take such action. The Minister can simply decided that ‘it is his belief’ that s/he needs to take control of the municipality. As the Minister is not accountable to the municipal voters – be they business or resident – it is an affront to democracy and renders municipal self-governance a pointless exercise.

Those commentators taking me to task about the business vote – and why they should be represented – seem blind to the fact that this amendment essentially makes all votes, whether they’re business or residential, meaningless.

Perhaps that got lost in between the additional points, that of an ad hoc and chaotic series of reforms (five in two and a half years) that demonstrates a policy failure on the part of the OBA, and that no such reforms should happen while there are some serious allegations that touch on the very municipal reforms (motives and process) that the OBA have and are doing.

The central point though is that this current amendment essentially abolishes the municipalities from a democratic perspective – it neuters them to, at best, a Quango, and is an insult to all municipal voters.